W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Annotation Concept vs Document (was Level 1 comments)

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 08:59:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGrGEPA4hs3HFL9TcNQmX=nYfJkndLMotOPtYOQyMFnjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

>>>> * The Proxy construction for talking about the
>>>> resource-in-the-context-of-the-Annotation was not especially liked.
>>>> This would be the equivalent of a Specific Resource that we have now.

>>> I would disagree. In all examples I can think ok, the resources
>>> considered
>>> by the annotation are described in "objective" terms, not "specific to
>>> the
>>> annotation at hand". A text body and an image target do not change across
>>> context.

>> It was seen somewhat as the equivalent of reifying annotea's context
>> predicate.
>> So it could be read as:  In the context of the annotation, I'm
>> referring to this segment of the resource.
> Yes but a segment/state resource is not an annotation-specific perspective
> of one the source. It's objectively defined, and can be re-used across
> annotations. In fact I'm eager to re-visit a too quick interpretation
> yesterday (below). A Styled resource is also objective in a way: two
> annotations targeting two resources with different styles are indeed
> targeting two plainly different resources.

Yes, I agree. And I'm happy that there is at least the styleClass
property on the Specific Resource that makes this apparent.

I also agree that the specific resources are objectively defined,
which in my view is a significant improvement over Annotea and similar

>>> Hmm, in fact there is a problem: the styles. These can be
>>> annotation-specific.
>> We could add text to the paragraph starting "When rendering a Specific
>> Resource,...":
>> If a Specific Resource has a styleClass, but no such class is
>> described by a CssStyle attached to the Annotation, then the
>> styleClass MUST be silently ignored.

Which I've done, as it seems like a reasonable processing
requirement... and there's no other realistic option anyway.

> In addition to the lack of need for changing the doc (see above), I think
> this would have solved the issue: my problem was in fact if two annotations
> were targetting one resource with two different styles, and these two
> annotations have each their CssStyle.
> But as I understand now, the "one resource with two different styles" should
> actually be two resources (derived from the same segment).

Yes, there would be two Specific Resources, each with a styleClass and
the same Source. Example below.

I think, though, that this does point out a failing in the
introduction of the module where it says that the Specific Resource is
the thing *before* processing the style.  The Specific Resource must
be the result of processing all of the descriptive properties,
including both style and scope.

I propose changing the description in 3.1 to reflect this.



Two styles on same resource:

_:anno1 a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasTarget _:sptarget1 ;
  oa:hasTarget _:sptarget 2 ;
  oa:styledBy _:style1 ;
  oa:hasBody _:body1 .

_:sptarget1 a oa:SpecificResource ;
  oa:hasSource _:source1 ;
  oa:styleClass "red" .

_:sptarget2 a oa:SpecificResource ;
  oa:hasSource _:source1 ;
  oa:styleClass "blue" .

_:style1 a oa:CssStyle .
_:body1 a dctypes:Text .

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 16:00:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:21 UTC